Its impossible to know one way or the other what a pitching or a hitting coach really contributed to a team. We can look at the team's hitting and pitching stats, but of course available talent, luck, and a host of other factors play a large and unknown part in this as well.

If we judge only by team stats then I would argue that both Papa Jack (who I like) and Wallace deserve to go. The Red Sox pitching was awful this year, and outside of Ortiz and Manny there wasn't much contribution from anyone else, especially in August when the season was going down the tubes.

In any case, I will bow to those within the organization on this move because they have more information than any of us, and assume that its the right thing to do.

Today's Globe offers a detailed account on Theo's decisions to fire Wallace and Papa Jack, with the following but one excerpt that reveals the much greater chasm that often exists in that relatively short distance between the dugout and the front office:

``I think the thing I find most disappointing is that in four years, nobody ever asked my opinion about bringing in a player," Wallace said. ``In 2003, I was brought into the middle of chaos and we almost won it. The next year we won the World Series, and the year after that, without [Curt] Schilling and [Keith] Foulke, we got in [the playoffs].

`I just wish someone could give me a reason."

Statistically, the numbers offer compelling evidence that the 2006 Red Sox could have pitched and hit better, but there's more than enough blame in each area to go around. In Wallace's case, how many times did Tito's non-existent hook cost this team? Is Jackson the sole reason why Tek's average was worse than Gonzalez?

As someone once famously opined, if you want loyalty, get a dog. Both Wallace and Jackson were class acts who represented the organization well, and both deserved a better fate.

And I, just this moment, sent you two an email about the too short 30 minute show..it's on my blog, but also in your email. Take care!!! It makes me happy to share something as wonderful as this. Peter

Jere - yr right about Nipper. But I wasn't advocating the firing of Papa Jack or Wallace (or Nipper). I was just saying that based on the information we have about the team (they under-performed, assuming that is your opinion) the coaches in charge of the specific aspects in which the team under-performed should be let go.

I like those guys and I don't like to see anyone get fired, but the people who run the team think it will help the Red Sox get better, and I'm going to trust them until they show they can't be trusted.

I don't see the evidence for firing Jackson. Papi had a terrific season,and he's been aJackson project. Pena had his best year at bat in terms of making contact and getting on base. Lowell rebounded when nobody thought he would. Youklis was hurt by injuries at the ned, but he had a good year. Gonzalez season was pretty representative. The disappointing offensive figures boil down to Varitek (bad year, maybe age-related decline); Crisp (apparently everyone belives that his finger was the culprit) and Nixon (continuing a decline that has been going on awhile.) Where exactly did Jackson not perform? The OBA stayed up there. He predates Francona; you have to figure that Tito just wanted someone else. As for Wallace...well, any time the pitching underperforms two years running, the pitching coach is toast, injuries or not. It was annoying how many relief pitchers dumped by the Sox pitched well elsewhere this season: Todd Jones, Embree, Stanton, Myers, Meredith... plus earlier dumps like Mahay, Shouse,Lyon, Fassero, Gordon.

"Pena had his best year at bat in terms of making contact and getting on base"

Two years ago, the year he had the most ABs, Pena struck out at a lower rate than this season.

He improved a little in the walk department, but 1 every 13.8 AB isn't so good.

His slugging dropped for second year in a row, as did his HR rate.

But you're right, he got on base more.

Combine all that with something you brought up the other day, that we didn't have an established starter in the 5-spot once all year, and I think I take home the belt in the Wily Mo/Bronson debate, for 2006, anyway.

Peter: They do indeed get fired, but the people who get fired should be the ones who did a lousy job, particularly if they have done a great job in the recent past. The Sox led the majors in offense three years running under Jackson, and then he gets fired when they it has one off year when the team gets hit with an injury plague in August. Ridiculous.

Jere: I'd attribute the power fall-off to the wrist problems, wouldn't you? And who cares about strike-outs if you bat .300? I sure don't. As for Arroyo-Pena, if you mean that, as it turned out, Arroyo would have been more valuable to the Sox this year than Wily Mo, I couldn't disagree. But Arroyo was still a sub-.500 pitcher after June 15, did not turn into a star, and is a year older. I'd make that trade again this winter, and I bet Theo would too.